How’s the state of the union? Depends upon whom you ask

President Barack Obama delivers the State of the Union address on Jan. 24, 2012. Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was given in a context that underscored that the Republicans have no monopoly on resurrection. As the fortunes of Republican candidates have routinely skated to the precipice and back, so too has the president courted his political demise.

Written off only a few months ago by pundits and not a few voters, Obama’s prospects have been enhanced by several recent developments, including the killing of Sept. 11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden — an event Republican Mitch Daniels respectfully acknowledged in the Republican rebuttal to the state of the union. President Obama skillfully used this accomplishment at the beginning and end of his speech, not just to applaud our military but also as a nationally unifying moment that could teach us something about fighting our economic challenges.

Indeed, the economy is one other area where the president has experienced some gains, despite overall weakness and a recovery far short of that promised in more lofty previous State of the Union addresses. Unemployment is declining amid rising consumer confidence and reduced levels of household debt.

The other source of hope for the president’s prospects was the fortuitously timed fat pitch offered by the disclosure of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s tax returns, revealing a multimillion-dollar income taxed at less than half what many Americans pay.

Obama teed off on the wealth issue in the signature proposal of his speech. Calling for all Americans to pay their “fair share,” he proposed a minimum tax for millionaires. Perhaps coincidentally, but probably not, the proposal (30 percent) would double the taxes Romney was revealed to have paid in his just-released tax returns.

Timing is everything and, certainly helped by the release of Romney’s tax returns, now may be the time to call for a heightened tax on the rich as part of what Obama terms a “blueprint for an economy built to last.” The president has seen his approval ratings rise, if glacially, since he began sounding his populist message, reprising themes of Theodore Roosevelt in his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, in early December. This wasn’t necessarily the president’s ideal strategy, but with only incremental improvement in the economy and his approval ratings, it was the only realistic way forward.

Regarding the “realistic,” the president’s address identified plans for the future without the benefit of the political resources for follow-through, owing to obstacles in Congress and the harsh reality of our national debt. In the past, Obama offered grand, transformative prescriptions, but, in the current political environment, he was left to offer narrow objectives to be achieved through micro-policies. Instead of comprehensive reforms or expensive programs, he promoted tax incentives to: hire Americans, particularly veterans; stimulate American manufacturing; and, among other goals, retrain workers and promote innovation. He asked states to keep tuition down and reform education without the obvious power to make any of this happen. Still, he staked out the terrain he wants to occupy in the upcoming election: an economy where everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does his fair share.

This unifying theme of “fairness for all” excoriates the undertaxed and over-protected actors in our economy: “no bailouts, no handouts and no cop-outs” and smart government regulation to prevent the bad behavior that created the mess he inherited. Obama also seized upon another tide that has lifted his boat — the record low approval ratings for Congress — asserting that he will fight any obstruction with action while challenging lawmakers to produce bills to reform themselves.

The Republican rebuttal without bombast (and perhaps some buyer’s remorse)

The job of rebutting Obama was left to Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana. This role is commonly reserved for a rising star in the Republican Party, but in this instance it was also someone who bowed out of running for president. This is an enviable opportunity for exposure but, in the context of GOP nomination politics this year, it probably served to remind many frustrated Republicans of a painfully lost opportunity.

Like all such rebuttals, it was presented in an empty room without the pomp and spectacle afforded presidents. It was, nonetheless, a powerful counterpoint to Obama, offered without the bombast that has been characteristic of Republican candidates in the political cycle so far.

Where Obama proclaimed “America is back” with a promising future founded on sound government intervention, Daniels pointed out that while the president didn’t create the economic crisis, he was elected to fix it and had instead made it worse. Citing an array of statistics to back this point, he emphasized the national debt as a looming threat and one that had grown perilously during the Obama administration.

An approach to recovery that relies on, and expands, government not only won’t work, he said, but is likely to put us in the same position as Greece, Spain and other teetering European economies.

Daniels asserted the foundations to Obama’s approach are based in class warfare, “to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others.” Rather than taxing the rich, or a continued commitment to government intervention, he called for a pro-jobs, pro-economic growth strategy before we “drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt.” Americans, he argued, needed to be served, and not supervised, by its government.

The same goals, different means, different threats

Comparing the two speeches, they both pointed to a crisis of monumental proportions and aimed for the restoration of American economic health. The president highlighted an upward trend while warning of a slip back into the abyss. He made little mention of the national debt while underscoring the important role of government for an “America built to last.”

Daniels emphasized the deficiencies of the president’s approach, specifically its contribution to the national debt, which he viewed as threatening America’s economic future. That course, he said, is hastening our arrival in that abyss: “Time is running out.”

As the economy is the primary concern of American voters, look for two dominant themes in the 2012 election: Continue the groundwork for prosperity (according to the Democrats), or ignore the impending catastrophe by committing to the current course (according to the Republicans).

Guest blogger Paul Brace is the Clarence L. Carter Professor of Political Science at Rice University. He is co-author of “Follow the Leader: Opinion Polls and the Modern Presidents,” author of “State Government and Economic Performance” and co-editor of “The Presidency in American Politics” and “American State and Local Politics.” He has published research in the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Political Research Quarterly, Polity, Social Science Quarterly, American Politics Quarterly, Legislative Studies Quarterly and other journals.

One Response

As I watched and listened to President Obama’s State of the Union speech on January 24, 2012, I couldn’t help feel that I have heard it all before. It wasn’t so much what he said in his speech as what he didn’t say. He unveiled his plan for “continued” economic growth and job creation, even though his policies have destroyed both.He made those often repeated references to inheriting the recession from the previous administration and blamed everyone else for the country’s economic problems except himself of course. It was George W. Bush, stubborn Conservatives and the evil Republicans in Congress that left the country in such an economic black hole that he has been digging out of it ever since he took office in 2009.

He bragged about creating 3 million new jobs in the last 22 months, which is pretty strange since the economy has lost about 2 million jobs in that same time period.He also failed to mention that during those same 22 months, his administration has issued more than 3 million work visas to new immigrants and foreign workers, with more than half of them allowed to stay in the country permanently. What’s the point of creating so many jobs if we are going to import foreign workers to fill those positions?How does that policy help the unemployed American worker?

Then he talked about how the GM and Chrysler bailouts worked and that both car makers were back on top.He failed to mention that the United Auto Workers were handed a big chunk of both companies for supporting him in the 2008 election and how the GM individual bond holders lost everything because of his administration’s decision not to pay them. After preaching about “no more bailouts, no more hand outs and no more cop outs,” he proudly pointed to the two auto companies he bailed out as successes. He also bailed out the UAW but he didn’t mention that point in his speech.

When Mr. Obama took office in 2009, the unemployment rate was 6.8 percent. Today it is officially 8.5 percent, although, for some reason, his administration no longer counts those people who are still unemployed and somehow are classified as no longer looking for work. The administration also doesn’t count those 8 million plus Americans who can only find part-time jobs. The true figure is closer to 11 or 12 percent with an astounding 50% unemployment rate in the black community. That doesn’t sound like a success to me. In 2012 there are now fewer payroll jobs in America than there were in 2000.Also, when Mr. Obama took office in 2009, a gallon of gas cost $1.68. Today, it’s $3.39 and rising, which amounts to more than a doubling of the price in just two years. He didn’t mention that either.

For the last three years, the President has been unable to come up with an official budget although we are now spending $3.8 Trillion a year with an incoming revenue stream of only $2.1 Trillion. Mr. Obama is on a dangerous economic course to borrow $6.2 Trillion in his first (and hopefully last) term as president.Our debt is rising by $4.2 Billion per day, $175 Million per hour or $3 Million per minute. Our president doesn’t seem to get what every working, taxpaying American household knows in America – that you can’t continually spend more than you take in.Sooner or later, you are going to be broke.

Mr. Obama said he ended the war in Iraq and Osama Bin laden was no longer a threat– and then he said that we should use the money we save from the war to rebuild the infrastructure of America.There was a “fairness” theme throughout the speech which sounded more like taking money from some of us and giving it to others, usually called the redistribution of wealth. He blamed the banks for creating the housing collapse but omitted that government’s major role in creating the housing bubble by mandating that the banks give loans to people who couldn’t afford them. He also rolled out that tired of phase “equal pay for equal work” to get the female vote.

He wanted to extend the payroll tax cut (big applause from the Democrats); ban insider trading by members of congress (not so much applause), tax the top 2% of Americans (class warfare); more taxes and more spending on a variety of new programs. He wanted congress to pass legislation that would allow the children of illegal aliens to be given a path to citizenship.

He defended his investment in clean energy, but ignored the corruption of crony capitalism that stains his administration for giving billions of dollars in loan guarantees to big Democrat donors just before they went into bankruptcy, like Solyndra.

He really missed the point when he said that it was teamwork that made America great. Maybe he was talking about the collective decision making of socialism and got the Communist Manifesto mixed up with the Constitution.America was founded upon individual Liberty and freedom of the people over and above the government, not teamwork as he would have us believe.

The speech was not a great State of the Union Speech in that it failed to show a great and positive vision for the future of America. Rather, is was a typical Barack Obama reelection campaign speech full of the same old class warfare slogans like “fairness,”proposals for more and bigger government programs that will give the government more control over your everyday lives and of course, more investment in our country’s future (codeword for more taxes) in programs that don’t work.

This president was elected on a slogan of “Hope and Change.” He has given us“change” alright, and most Americans now “hope” to kick him out in 2012. Americans do not want a bigger and more intrusive federal government, higher taxes, more government corruption and just plain incompetence at the highest levels. Most Americans want what the primary purpose of the federal government is supposed to give us, and that is to protect the citizens of this country from foreign invaders (including the millions of illegal aliens), other internal threats and to stop sending the U.S. military all over the world to invade other counties at the bidding of that corrupt communist hell hole called the United Nations.

Americans want an economy that promotes employment. We want jobs brought back to our country that have been outsourced or lost as a result of NAFTA and CAFTA like treaties and other lopsided trade agreements that favor the other countries. We want Social Security and Medicare adjusted but we do not want it destroyed. We want a workable education system controlled by the States without federal interference. We want affordable private health care plans, not a government mandated plan. We want a simpler and fair tax code. We want a balanced budget and an end to out of control government spending. We want illegal immigration stopped and our borders secured. We want an end to Washington corruption and Crony Capitalism.

And that, my fellow Americans, would be real “Hope and Change.”

————————————————

John W. Wallace

Chatham, NY 12037

Blog Search

Keyword search across all the entries in this blog.

Search

The mission of the nonpartisan James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy is to help bridge the gap between theory and practice of public
policy by drawing together experts from academic, government, media, business
and nongovernmental organizations. By involving policymakers, scholars
and students, the institute seeks to improve the debate on selected public
policy issues and to make a difference in the formulation, implementation and
evaluation of public policy. The institute’s more than 20 programs, which include research, speaking series, events and special projects, have helped attract a host of prominent leaders who provide their views and insights on key issues.